Posted on 10/08/2018 9:22:18 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
LONDON - Society would have to enact "unprecedented" changes to how it consumes energy, travels and builds to meet a lower global warming target or it risks increases in heat waves, flood-causing storms and the chances of drought in some regions as well as the loss of species, a U.N. report said on Monday.
The report is seen as the main scientific guide for government policymakers on how to implement the 2015 Paris Agreement during the Katowice Climate Change Conference in Poland in December.
To contain warming at 1.5C, man-made global net carbon dioxide emissions would need to fall by about 45 percent by 2030 from 2010 levels and reach "net zero" by mid-century. Any additional emissions would require removing CO2 from the air.
"The report shows that we only have the slimmest of opportunities remaining to avoid unthinkable damage to the climate system that supports life as we know it," said Amjad Abdulla, the IPCC board member and chief negotiator for an alliance of small island states at risk of flooding as sea levels rise.
(Excerpt) Read more at nbcnews.com ...
I know one place we could eliminate a lot of hot air...
In other words, give us lots of money.
Yup. Taxpayers must fork over ‘unprecedented’ amounts of money to keep us happy, er, I mean, to avert global warming.
I would think a permanent banning of the United Nations from its original and any other planetary meddling should instantly clarify this report.
We’re about to enter the coldest period in decades. Solar minimum is now crashing. No sun spots in weeks. Go sell your snake oil elsewhere...
I agree. We need to locate everyone who keeps trying to sell us this corrupt Ponzi scheme, and we need to punch them in the mouth till they get the idea to stop trying to con us with this bullsh*t.
Well, we could blow up the UN with all it's little child rapists still inside.
That should reduce their "carbon footprint".
[To contain warming at 1.5C, man-made global net carbon dioxide emissions would need to fall by about 45 percent by 2030 from 2010 levels and reach “net zero” by mid-century. Any additional emissions would require removing CO2 from the air. ]
These people are insane.
But it's curious that they never explain what the "or else" entails.
That way they can keep their long con going.
They can’t prove global warming would be bad.
They can’t even prove global warming exists.
Imagine longer growing seasons at higher latitudes! It might be a blessing to a hungry world.
What was that B grade fantasy movie where a high priest druid was demanding everyone give him their kids to offer to the gods. Was it Kull? Beastmaster?
If they were serious they should park their private jets and commit mass suicide to help the problem along with their staff.
Let’s let the Yurps show us the way since they’re so keen on it and all.
Let’s see....how much have European countries reduced their carbon emissions as they agreed to do since they signed the Paris Agreement?
Oh. I see.
Plenty of science and history to back that up as well!
Problem is that there's this giant ball of fusing hydrogen about 1 AU from us that has a little something to do with our climate, whether they want to admit it or not.
Historically, period of glaciation are devastating for the planet. Entire nation-states were wiped out due to long-term cold snaps. I think if you play off of that alone, you can estimate why the Left wants to "cool" the planet.
What’s the “correct” amount of atmospheric CO2?
What’s the “correct” “global temperature”?
The AGW loons could always voluntarily remove themselves from the equation.
Proving Global Warming is like corroborating Dr. Ford’s story.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.